The High Court refused Enoch Burke’s application for interim injunctions to stop Wilson’s Hospital School from holding a disciplinary meeting, continuing its disciplinary process or dismissing him. The court found that he had met the threshold for interim relief on concerns about the preparation and discussion of the principal’s report. But it concluded that his stated intention to keep breaching court orders tipped the balance against granting an injunction.
The application concerned a Stage 4 disciplinary process under Department of Education Circular 49/2018. The school’s principal had prepared a report alleging serious misconduct. The allegations arose from Mr Burke’s objections to the school’s approach to a student’s social transition, and from disputed events at a school service and dinner. The court said those disputes were matters for the disciplinary process and did not resolve them in this application.
The judge found a strong case that the report contained conclusions about whether Mr Burke’s conduct was inappropriate and unacceptable, even though he had not yet had an opportunity to respond. The report was read and discussed at a Board meeting on 15 August 2022, attended by the principal but not Mr Burke. The judge also found a strong case that the principal’s attendance could be wrongful, given her role in preparing the report and her involvement in some of the events it described.
The court did not find that any discussion of the report by the Board was itself wrongful. It said the full meaning of the circular and the nature of the meeting’s discussion would require further examination. But, taken together, the report’s conclusions, its discussion by the Board and the principal’s presence created a risk that Board members had been influenced before hearing Mr Burke’s response. The court found a strong case that the process might have gone irreparably wrong. It did not decide the other grounds Mr Burke raised.
The judge said the balance of justice would otherwise favour an injunction, taking account of possible reputational harm if the process led to a sanction, the school’s need to conclude the proceedings and the prospect of an early trial. However, Mr Burke had continued attending the school despite orders barring him from the premises and interfering with school activities. He told the court he intended to continue. The judge held that this tipped the balance against relief and, independently, that it would be inequitable to grant an injunction while he persisted in refusing to comply with valid court orders.
The court also declined to refuse relief solely because Mr Burke would not give an undertaking as to damages. Rather than finally disposing of the application at that stage, the judge listed it for mention on 18 January 2023, allowing Mr Burke time to consider whether he would comply with the existing orders. A disciplinary meeting was scheduled for 19 January. The judgment does not record what happened at the later mention or meeting.